CiteScore: 3.14ℹ
CiteScore measures the average citations received per document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a given year (e.g. 2015) to documents published in three previous calendar years (e.g. 2012 – 14), divided by the number of documents in these three previous years (e.g. 2012 – 14).

Impact Factor: 2.476ℹImpact Factor:2016: 2.476The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years.
2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018)

5-Year Impact Factor: 3.095ℹFive-Year Impact Factor:2016: 3.095To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2016 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years.
2017 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2018)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.766ℹSource Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):2016: 1.766SNIP measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 1.193ℹSCImago Journal Rank (SJR):2016: 1.193SJR is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR uses a similar algorithm as the Google page rank; it provides a quantitative and a qualitative measure of the journal’s impact.

Author StatsℹAuthor Stats:Publishing your article with us has many benefits, such as having access to a personal dashboard: citation and usage data on your publications in one place. This free service is available to anyone who has published and whose publication is in Scopus.

Ambidexterity is an important factor for influencing the performance at different levels in organizations (He & Wong, 2004; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013; Junni et al., 2013; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). Ambidexterity at the organizational level can be defined as the capability to reconcile two opposite strategies (for example, simultaneously pursuing both exploration and exploitation) within the same firm (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Simsek, 2009). Thus, the challenge of ambidexterity lies in matching the organization’s strategy with its resources and competences (e.g. Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008).

Strategic ambidexterity have received limited attention from global perspectives, and especially there are not enough comparative studies conducted on emerging markets' firms and developed markets firms to understand the antecedents and consequences of strategic ambidexterity for enhancing performance of these firms (Lavie et al., 2011; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). From strategic management perspective, MNEs should choose their corporate strategies ‘where to compete’ for competitive advantage, by (1) diversifying products/services, (2) functional value chain activities and (3) geographical locations. Traditional management and international business literature has relatively focused on the geographical diversification of MNEs theoretically drawing on expanding MNEs oligopolistic behavior and internalization (Buckly & Casson, 1976), and knowledge-based view (Kogut & Zander, 1992).

In the globalization and digitalization era, however, contemporary MNEs strategically diversify the first two pillars (i.e., products/services and business functions) through innovative product development and outsourcing through strategic ambidexterity. In the economically integrated and technologically connected world, both EMNEs and DMNEs need to be strategic ambidextrous to implement their corporate/business strategies to cope with new environmental challenges and opportunities also coming from various conflicting forces and risks in international business, including cultural differences (Roth & Morrison, 1990; Shenkar, 2001)

Yet we have relatively limited understanding about the role of strategic ambidexterity in performance and global strategy pursued by EMNEs vis-a-vis DMNEs. Organizational ambidexterity studies have been conducted in a wide variety of industries and methodological settings, and the empirical results so far have been mixed (e.g. Junni et al., 2013). Above all, strategic ambidexterity has received limited research attention in the international business and management literature. The purpose of this special issue is to identify synergies between strategic ambidexterity and global strategy pursued by EMNEs vis-a-vis DMNEs for developing competitive advantage. We encourage authors to submit research articles ranging from theoretical/conceptual work to case studies. In addition, we welcome empirical research articles testing theories in the global business and management context.

The special issue offers novel insights in terms of the performance implications of strategic ambidexterity, the relative importance of strategic ambidexterity antecedents and their interaction effects, and the influence of different contexts (intra-firm, inter-firm, network) and different levels of analysis (firm level, business-unit level, top management team, individual), in terms of promoting theoretical synthesis, and suggests new venues for future research in the context of EMNEs.

(14) Strategic ambidexterity and emerging economy international new ventures survival

Submission Process

The deadline for submitting papers is June 30, 2018.

Submissions to the special issue should be sent electronically through the Journal web platform https://www.evise.com/profile/#/IBR/login. When submitting their manuscript, it is important that authors select the ‘SI: Ambidexterity’ option in the “Article Type” step of the submission process.

Research data forms the backbone of research articles and provides the foundation on which knowledge is built. Researchers are increasingly encouraged, or even mandated, to make research data available, accessible, discoverable and usable. Although not mandatory, the journal encourages authors to submit their data at the same time as their drafts of the full manuscript. Further information can be found at: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-services/research-data